Changing environmental demands and the increasing importance of
science and technology have added a new dimension to the
university's role in society: economic development through
technological innovation and transfer. In recent years, a new
administrative entity -- the university-industry liaison office -- has
emerged as an important partner in this process. The university-industry
liaison office has three main tasks: disseminating information about the
university's research potential, developing partnerships among the
university, business and industry, promoting
"entrepreneur-ship" within the academic community.

This triple role allows the university-industry liaison office to
have a major impact on the image and the reputation of the university.
As university service to the community increases over the next decade,
the importance of the university-industry liaison office also will grow.
This article describes how a university-industry liaison office can
enhance the contribution a modern university makes to the economy of the
region, the nation and the world.

Fifty years ago, the university's role was restricted to
research and training young people for a place in society. Nowadays,
industry has a growing need for the specialized know-how, information
and advice available from universities. As a result, universities are
playing an active role in the process of technological innovation by
licensing inventions and discoveries to industry. Spin-off companies,
science parks and incubators are examples of the results of
university-industry collaboration (Bok, 1982; Bullock, 1983;
Stankiewicz, 1986; Wade, 1986).

Governments have encouraged such arrangements by including service
to society and to the industrial world, along with the traditional
objectives of education and research, as part of the mission of the
university. In different countries, the law has been adapted in recent
years to include this objective and to "officialize" the
economic role of the university for the region and for society.

In return, industry has contributed to the research enterprise by
helping to finance university research programs. Increased costs for
scientific equipment and insufficient governmental funding have obliged universities to look to a variety of sources -- including industry --
for a new means of financing research.

The combination of university knowledge and industrial financial
support has lead to innovation and the creation of new businesses, jobs
and wealth. However, these outcomes are not always easy to obtain.
Successful cooperation between industry and the university requires a
special kind of synergy. To achieve a successful cooperation agreement,
both parties need to be aware of each other's interests and
objectives as well as each other's complementary strengths.

The following article describes how industry can benefit from
various university services and analyzes some important characteristics
of the innovation process. The importance of intermediary organizations
and networks in the technology transfer process are described. External
and internal marketing of R&D services, including the costs and
potential value of the innovation process and the risks involved, also
will be discussed in relationship to the strategic role of the
university-industry liaison office.

Overview of University-Industry Interaction

In a knowledge-based society, access to information is critical. It
is one of the most important services a university can provide to
business and industry. University personnel can provide expert advice,
help in conducting targeted experiments and laboratory work, and
assistance in analyzing data. Institutions of higher education also can
provide continuing education for industry personnel. In recent years,
institutions of higher education have begun to directly contribute to
the economy of the region surrounding the university through the process
of technology transfer.

Technology transfer begins with industry and university
interaction. According to Van Dierdonck and Debackere (1988),
interaction between industry representatives and university faculty
follows a predictable sequence. Initially, faculty members serve as
consultants and assist with data analysis. At the next stage, industry
may choose to license innovations developed by university personnel.
Spin-off companies based on these innovations generally follow.

As the university becomes more involved in technology transfer, the
establishment of a science park and an incubator for new
technology-based start-up companies is a matter to be considered by
university administrators and the university board of directors or
trustees. The establishment of such entities reflects a
university's commitment to the region's economy. The final
step in the technology transfer sequence is the establishment of a
venture capital fund, attached to, or managed by the university.

The above overview is not meant to imply that industry-university
collaboration is an easy task. It presents a double challenge: working
with people and working within the difficult discipline of innovation.
Collaborative work between and among people has its trials, successes
and failures. Although there are advantages to collaboration, barriers
may arise to prevent cooperation.

Van Dierdonck and Debackere (1988) identify three types of
barriers: cultural barriers (mutual incomprehension), institutional
barriers (unclear norms and policies) and operational barriers (problems
arising during the implementation of the project as result of rules,
norms, etc.). These barriers can occur on both the industrial and
university side of the collaboration. The differences in university and
industry cultures are examined in the following section.

University vs. Industry Cultures

The culture and objectives of industry and higher education differ.
The university scientist uses a long-term approach to research and is
devoted to academic freedom and publication. Faculty members are
typically concerned with tenure and promotion decisions and salary
increases based on merit. In some academic departments, applied research
may not be rewarded as much as teaching or basic research.

The benefit of collaborating with university researchers is fairly
clear to business and industry. However, the industry culture emphasizes
applied research, secrecy, protection through patents and typically
employs a product-driven approach (Fassin, 1991).

It is important to recognize that technology transfer occurs when
university faculty and representatives from business and industry work
together for mutual gain. Therefore, industry-university collaboration
cannot be forced and cultural differences must be understood. Table 1
presents a comparison of industry and university objectives.

As Table 1 implies, universities and industry work in two separate
worlds driven by different objectives. Today, although universities and
industry have begun to recognize how they can work together for mutual
benefit, a problem still exists: industry does not recognize the
university's potential, and the university does not know the exact
needs of industry. This problem is due to a lack of information on both
sides.

Traditionally, universities have been rather passive in this area,
which has reinforced the image of the university as an "ivory
tower." The transfer of information and university collaboration
with industry has, in the past, often been the result of a fortuitous
event, some accidental meeting between a professor and an industrial
manager, often through alumni or private contacts.

Modern industry, however, has a track record of seeking information
from marketers and R&D people to better understand the real needs of
their customers. Therefore, industry has been willing to look for new
ideas from suppliers and all potential sources of information, including
university research laboratories. Many big companies have special
officers to survey and to keep in contact with the university
laboratories in their field of interest.

More recently, universities have begun to open themselves up to the
outside environment. They have developed inventories of external
services and catalogues of their research activities and potential.
Special intermediary services now are being provided by industrial
liaison offices and interface departments or transfer points (Hull,
1990; Kuhlmann, 1991).

The pattern of university and industry interaction has evolved over
time. Today there is an increase in the number of contacts between
universities and industry. However, for consulting and data analysis
activities, the industrial company usually takes the initiative to
contact the professor, and for licensing and spin-offs, it is more
common for the university to be the initiating partner.

The Innovation Process

Innovation is important to industry. The aim of the business world
is to create wealth. Innovation leads to new products, new markets and
to commercial and financial success. It is worthwhile to identify the
steps that must be taken to move from the point of a great idea to a
commercial success and to study the multiple hurdles that must be
overcome.

Most successful innovations begin with an inventor with an idea.
The inventor then works to develop the idea into something practical, in
his or her garage, company or scientific laboratory. Next, the inventor
tests the practical application of the idea and hopes for positive
results. Further work leads to the development of a prototype.

However, the work is not finished. The prototype seldom satisfies.
The prototype must be refined, and further study often has to be
undertaken to overcome technical problems. This phase is generally
called the development phase.

The final result is a pre-industrial product that meets technical
specifications. The next step is further engineering to reduce the
production price of the product. This is generally done during the
scaling up phase. Once the technical problems have been resolved,
production costs are acceptable and marketing research gives a positive
signal, the product is launched in the marketplace.

The innovation process involves many interactions and feedback
loops. At each step the cost of the process increases, as does the value
of the project, or at least the potential value of the potential
innovation. It is not uncommon for costs to increase more than expected
in each phase.

Even if the first test of an idea can be executed within a
reasonable budget, as in the case of an innovation tested in a garage,
the process of moving an innovation from prototype to pre-industrial
product to the phase of up scaling grows increasingly expensive.
Moreover, to launch a product successfully in the marketplace requires a
large budget.

It is important to see this evolution in costs related to the
phases of the project over time. Costs rise exponentially, and so does
the potential value of the project. But the success of the launch is not
yet guaranteed. The literature on innovation has proven that many new
products are not always transformed into successful commercial
successes, even if they are technically superb. The key to the
commercial success of any innovation is marketing.

Thus, success depends on both the technological advantages of the
product as well as the market's need for the product. It is good to
have feedback from the market in the early phases of technology
transfer, as the reaction of the market can lead to improvements and
refinements that will increase the chances of the product's
ultimate success.

The academic's tendency is to spend too much time in the
laboratory tying to improve the prototype and find a perfect technical
solution. Again, financial imperatives have to be considered, and time
is an advantage in a competitive market. Continuing to improve the
prototype will delay the launch, diminish the lead time and increase the
risk that a competitor will be the first to market a similar product. It
must be remembered that innovation does not stop with the launch.
Continuous improvements lead to upgrades and a new time advantage to the
competitors.

This means that the success of an innovation project can not be
evaluated until the final step has been reached. At that time, the value
of the project can be determined. The value of the project may have
increased exponentially or decreased towards zero because of rejection
by the marketplace. It takes a significant amount of time to go through
the whole process; the time from idea to commercial success should not
be underestimated.

The Role of the Inventor

It is clear that establishing the value of an innovative idea is a
complex operation. Even the brightest idea, without appropriate
technical development and marketing, has little or no chance of success.
The inventor must be aware that even if they were present at the birth
of the innovation, without the efforts of others with complementary
competencies, their bright idea has little chance of evolving into a
successful product.

Some inventors have difficulty accepting this fact. Even if their
initial idea is the most important step in the whole process, the final
success depends on other factors. With the technological evolution and
the increasing interdependence of sciences, only exceptional individuals
are able to take an idea to production by themselves.

It is sometimes difficult for academicians to accept that the
technical development and marketing of their innovation is better left
to specialists (with their assistance and support). It is also difficult
for an inventor to accept that they will not receive all the credit or
the biggest financial rewards. The industrialization phase and the
marketing of a product are major financial undertakings that few
individuals can assume. Thus, the business and industrial partners that
bear these costs have a right to a larger share of the profits.

The same financial logic applies to the university's know-how
and spin-offs. As the value of a project increases, more resources are
required. Since the university only has limited resources, its
involvement is primarily during the predevelopment and prototyping
phases. This implies that the potential value of the product will be
lower at the early stages than later stages of development.

The Role of the Industry-Liaison Office

The university's industry liaison office plays several
important roles in the process of technology transfer: information
broker, science marketer and catalyst for academic entrepreneurs. The
goal of these activities is to give the university a dynamic, practice
oriented and high-technology image. The entrepreneurial university
contributes to the social and economic growth of the region it serves, a
crucial role in the university's mission. The following section
describes the specific contribution of the university-industry liaison
office can make to this process.

Promoting University-Industry Interaction. Faculty members are
organized in departments and colleges under broad academic areas. This
structure makes it difficult for industry to identify someone with
expertise in a particular area or someone to contact for help with a
specific problem. Many universities have therefore established liaison
offices to help outsiders navigate the university organization.

The role of the liaison office is to help people outside the
university find one or more researchers with expertise in a specific
area. Such information is centralized in the liaison office. The goal of
the liaison office is to lower the entrance barrier for the external
business world and to complement existing informal direct contacts
between faculty and industrial representatives.

Thus, the role of the liaison office does not differ that much from
the classic marketing manager's function. Marketing is about
communication and information and bringing people together, i.e.
creating linkages. However, the marketing of the university R&D
services means marketing professional services (Kotler & Bloom,
1984). Therefore, the university-industry liaison office has a dual
function: marketing outside the organization (the classical marketing),
and marketing inside the organization.

External Marketing. The marketing of the university's research
potential is a new area for marketing that has only been discovered
recently. It can be called 'science marketing.' It is
paradoxical that universities that offer marketing as a management
discipline in their business schools have been one of the last
organizations to adopt it for their own purposes. Science marketing
reinforces the university's public image in the external world.

It is the responsibility of the liaison office to actively promote
university services in the business community. This may include
dissemination of brochures containing information on the
university's research strengths and organizing visits by corporate
customers to university research labs as a way of highlighting
university capabilities and facilitating personal contact between
university and industry representatives. Personal contact is important,
and it is always better to demonstrate one's capabilities than to
just talk about them.

During such meetings, industry representatives can learn what the
university's capabilities are; at the same time, scientists can
learn what interests business people. Discussion can lead to new areas
of common interest that would not have been covered in a less personal
conversation.

However, many people from business and industry still view the
university as an ivory tower that focuses on basic research and teaching
without a great deal of interest in practical matters such as applied
research. The marketing challenge for university-industry liaison
offices is to overcome this outdated perception.

Towards this end, liaison offices can launch special initiatives
that bring the university closer to the industrial world. Meetings
between scientists, financiers and industry representatives improve the
chances of finding common interests.

Liaison offices should use every opportunity to promote the
activities of the university and build a strong service image for the
university with potential customers. Use of the press and other media
can facilitate this process. Regular articles in various specialized
periodicals and coverage on television can focus attention on the
university's strengths. For many scientific discoveries that make
the daily news, the press will be eager to interview a local researcher.
In this sense, the university is a good product to sell.

Internal Marketing. The liaison office often has an even more
difficult task than external marketing -- internal marketing. It is
sometimes difficult to convince university professors that marketing
their expertise is wise or necessary. Conversely, some professors have
the idea that because they are the best in their field, they also are
brilliant in marketing their research.

The solution is to convince faculty that the liaison office has
something to offer. Unfortunately, most liaison officers are not known
within the university community. Marketing the liaison office helps
create an image for the office, stimulates awareness of the services
provided and creates awareness among potential customers, i.e., the
faculty.

To market the liaison office effectively, it is necessary to
overcome two barriers: the ever-present university bureaucracy and the
fact that a liaison office is not an academic unit -- which is a problem
in a world where only an academic rank is valued. It is therefore
important that a person who is known by everybody in the university and
has an extensive network of contacts in and outside the university
manage the liaison office.

The best marketing in business is a good success story. Similarly,
the best internal marketing for the liaison office is a happy professor.
It is not surprising that a university industry liaison officer in the
United States was considered very successful and received a great deal
of recognition when one of the university professors he had helped with
a patent became a millionaire and started driving a Ferrari.

The Role of Intermediary Organizations and Networks

Creating a university-industry liaison office at the university
does not ensure that the outside world will know the university exists,
and promotion is a very expensive activity. Universities cannot afford
big advertisement campaigns. Most liaison offices have a limited budget
and resources. Therefore, they typically must look for creative
solutions. A strategy of developing alliances may be very effective.

People in industry first will seek advice from people they know.
They may consult colleagues within their organization, or they might
make external contacts with known consultants. Other external sources
include people involved in intermediary organizations such as
professional federations as well as private or governmental brokers
active in technology transfer. Contact persons within an industrial
company also can act as intermediaries. In other cases, university
alumni can provide an introduction or be the contact person.

It is important for the liaison officer to know of possible
referrals, because they will be able to create a link with potential
customers that have no other access to the scientific community. Such
intermediaries act as a channel for the dissemination of information.
They also forward requests to the liaison officer because they know they
will receive an answer that can help their customer or contact.

There also is a broad scale of different organizations that operate
as brokers in the process of technology transfer. These brokers may have
private or governmental status (e.g. regional development agencies).
Brokers have their own network of contacts. They have access to
databanks and can supply all kinds of information including catalogues,
periodicals, etc. They often are present at technology fairs. The kind
of service varies from organization to organization, as does the
remuneration.

Besides these official and private brokers, there are other
organizations that can act as brokers (systematically or fortuitously).
Potential brokers include industry federations, alumni associations,
professional associations, the local Chamber of Commerce, as well as
banks, ministry cabinets and embassies. In Europe, some federations and
regional development agencies have recently broadened their scope of
activities to include dissemination of information and promotion of
innovation, thanks to European Community support. The probability of
contact increases thanks to all these intermediary associations.

Promoting Technology Transfer

One should never underestimate the distance between invention and
commercial success or forget that few inventions lead to the success of
the professor with the Ferrari described above. The difficult path to
success is represented in Figure 1, with two triangles, the one with the
base on top, the other one with the base down. The first represents the
laborious path from idea to innovative success. For every thousand
ideas, only one hundred becomes a prototype, and only 10 survive to the
technical and industrialization phase to become a product ready to be
launched. Only one will ever become a commercial success.

Since the risks are higher in the early stages of technology
transfer, it is not always easy to obtain the important "down
payment." The liaison office can help in negotiating the best deal
for the university. In many cases it will be a risk-sharing agreement
with a royalty on future sales. In some cases -- depending on the
resources and the evolution of the entrepreneurial spirit of the
university -- it will be possible to take a higher risk and to
participate in a spin-off company. The liaison office can take the
initiative and help in writing the business plan.

The liaison officer also can advise researchers on intellectual
property matters and patents (Ditzel, 1988) and assist the professor
during negotiations with business and industry representatives. It is
the liaison office's responsibility to defend the university's
rights in negotiations with very experienced businessmen who may not
always appreciate the university's commitment to knowledge
dissemination. Besides assistance with marketing and negotiation, the
liaison officer can facilitate the establishment of spin-off companies
and research parks. Table 2 provides a comprehensive list of the
activities of the university-industry liaison office.

Clearly, technology transfer is a risky business, and remains hard
work. It requires patience. Here too, the liaison officer can provide an
important service to the university community by conveying these truths
to professors who possess unrealistic expectations. It is important that
faculty members realize that making a successful business requires more
than just a bright idea, and that success is often the result of the
efforts of many people besides the inventor.

Similarly, there are many factors involved in profitable technology
transfer. The university-industry liaison office clearly plays an
important part in this process. The following strategies are associated
with successful technology transfer programs.

A Pro-Active Strategy. Liaison officers should go and visit the
business-industrial client, and not wait for the client to visit them,
which is the classical approach of a bureaucracy. By making an on-site visit, the liaison officer can see the client's laboratories and
obtain greater awareness of the lab's equipment and needs. More
importantly, the liaison officer can meet the researchers who are
working on projects. These researchers will then be able to put a face
with the name of the liaison officer, and the liaison officer will no
longer be an impersonal bureaucratic type somewhere in the
administration building.

Networking. The liaison officer should build an internal network in
the university organization. They should have at least one or two very
close contacts with key people in every department. These people will
keep them informed about what is happening in the department and, when
necessary, encourage their colleagues to contact the liaison officer to
report an invention.

As a result of networking, liaison officers often are the
best-informed persons in the university. Furthermore, a well-informed liaison officer can facilitate collaboration among researchers working
in different university laboratories. For example, if a researcher calls
for advice, and the liaison officer gives the caller the name of a
colleague in another department to contact, both researchers will be
helped. By being helpful, the liaison officer adds value to the overall
research enterprise.

Time Investment. It is impossible for the liaison officer to work
for everybody at the same time. Liaison officers should be realistic and
concentrate on no more than 10-20 projects at once. Select projects that
will add value, and focus on professors who are willing to collaborate.
Some professors already have a long tradition of working with industry.
Within their area of interest, they may have better contacts than the
liaison officer. Therefore, it is probably not necessary to invest a lot
of time helping these faculty members. It may be a better use of the
liaison officer's time to interact with young researchers with
potential. These young researchers are the academic stars of tomorrow.
Alliances with researchers that are in the early stages of their careers
may prove useful when these individuals later become chairpersons and
deans of academic units.

Training Programs. Although liaison officers cannot work for
everyone simultaneously, it is possible for the liaison officer to
develop training programs that are designed to benefit everyone. For
example, the liaison office could sponsor a course on
"entrepreneurship," or provide specific training sessions on
patents, intellectual property, business planning, etc. If these
opportunities are made available to the whole university community, the
liaison officer will attract a broad constituency that is interested in
obtaining information related to technology transfer. The liaison
officer should plan to make follow-up visits to individuals attending
these meetings.

Follow-Up. A good follow-up is necessary for all
university-industry contacts that have been established by the liaison
office. It is just human nature to forget to give decent feedback on the
actions of others. Therefore, the liaison office should handle this
service. If the liaison officer has given a name of a university
researcher or laboratory to an industry representative, the liaison
officer should follow up after one to two weeks.

If no action has been taken, the liaison officer should first
contact the university laboratory and then the industrial partner. It
may be that industry representatives have not been able to reach the
researcher. The liaison officer can then offer to organize a meeting. It
is important not to lose a potential customer who has already overcome
the first barrier to collaboration by calling the university-industry
liaison office.

After the initial meeting takes place, the liaison office should
follow up again, one or two months later, first with the researcher,
then with the industry representative. Follow-up will show the liaison
officer cares about the potential project. It is also a way to learn how
the customer is reacting to the service being provided by the university
and if the researcher is comfortable with their role in the project. If
problems are identified, the liaison officer can offer additional
service and advice.

Collaboration and Alliances. Brokers can play an important role in
encouraging technology transfer within their market segment. They can
take the initiative to set up meetings, conferences, information
sessions and visits to companies and laboratories. Collaboration between
the liaison office and these brokers can lead to a win-win situation.
For example, in organizing a visit to a lab for a group such as the
Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber can do an internal mailing inviting its
members to a special event. Then, only the liaison officer has to
organize the program within the university.

Commitment from the Top. As with every important initiative,
support and commitment from the top management of the university is
essential to the success of the liaison office. Towards this end, the
board of the university should approve an internal policy for
intellectual property rights and for technology transfer. The university
should give guidelines and also set up the necessary infrastructure for
the implementation of the policy; define how far it wants to go in the
innovation process; and create an entrepreneurial climate and
organizational flexibility necessary to support technology transfer
activities. This information should be distributed to all university
staff. As in many marketing communication programs, this message should
be repeated and enhanced from time to time.

Lessons Learned

Liaison offices are generally very limited in resources and staff.
They cannot handle all jobs nor do all the work. Moreover, because of
the decentralized aspect of most universities and the culture of
academic freedom, professors may not appreciate the intervention of
university central office staff.

We can derive two lessons from this. First, interaction between the
university's professors and liaison officers has to be voluntary.
Faculty cannot be forced to work with liaison officers. To carry out
their mission, liaison offices have to prove their usefulness to the
university's faculty. This is best accomplished through action
rather than words. For faculty, the value of the liaison office is
related to the quality of the advice the office staff provides in the
areas of marketing, technology, defense of property rights, etc., and by
the quality of the contacts the liaison office staff can create. With
their advice on the best strategy for technology transfer and assistance
to professors in the negotiations with industry, liaison offices create
added value.

The second lesson is that the liaison office must be promoted
internally. Many faculty members have a negative view of the bureaucracy
that typically surrounds a university's central administration. To
succeed, the liaison office must counteract this image through internal
marketing. This requires the commitment and support from the top
management of the university.

Conclusion

Silicon Valley and Boston Route 128 are good examples of how
technology transfer has mutually benefited industry and higher
education. Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and Harvard University have all participated in this process.
One of the best European examples is the Cambridge Science Park. More
specialized examples also exist. The biotechnology firm, Plant Genetic
Systems (PGS), has enhanced the image of the University of Ghent, which,
as a result of its interaction with PGS, boasts biotech laboratories
with an excellent worldwide reputation.

This type of reputation helps a university attract more research
contracts, especially on the international scene, and indirectly, it
helps the university attract students. It is usually the best students
who are interested in a university with excellent laboratories. This
undoubtedly gives the university a double financial advantage. However,
it is not always possible to figure out the exact level of financial
benefit.

The true impact of liaison offices on the technology transfer
process also is difficult to measure quantitatively. The services
provided by such offices tend to complement existing efforts. Moreover,
the success of the liaison office is often the result of complex
personal relationships that involve the whole scientific community.

In most European universities, liaison offices provide information,
facilitate contact between and among university faculty and industry,
and stimulate academic entrepreneurial behavior. Liaison officers
provide advice, initiate the technology transfer process, help write
business plans and help establish spin off companies and venture capital
funds. The strategic value of the liaison office in European
universities is increasing.

Successful universities in the 21st Century will have a center of
gravity that is slightly oriented toward a new role: service to
community. The ultimate criterion of success will be the quality of the
service a university provides. With their triple role of information
broker, science marketer and catalyst for academic entrepreneurship,
university-liaison offices can help universities respond to this
challenge.

Yves Fassin ("The Strategic Role of University Industry
Liaison Office") holds a Master of Science in Engineering and a
M.B.A. degree from the Vlerick Leuven Gent School voor Management,
associated with the Universities of Gent and Leuven in Ghent, Belgium.
He followed the Executive Program for Growing Companies at the Stanford
Business School. He was director of the Industrial Liaison Office of the
University of Ghent from 1981 to 1988 and Secretary-General of the
European Venture Capital Association from 1988 to 1991. He is currently
managing director of E.M.G., a metallic construction company, and serves
on the board of some other SMEs. He was a part-time professor of
technological innovation at the FUCAM, University of Mons and partner of
the Vlerick School for Management. His research interests include
innovation, technology transfer, entrepreneurship, venture capital and
IPOs and business ethical issues in these fields.

References

(1.) Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower -- Social
responsibilities of the modern university, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

(2.) Bullock, M. (1983). Academic enterprise, industrial
innovation, and the development of high technology financing in the
United States. London: Brand Bothers & Co.

(3.) Ditzel, R.G. (1988). Patent rights at the university/industry
interface. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, summer,
221-228.

(10.) Wade, N. (1984). The science business Report of the Twentieth
Century fund task force on the commercialization of scientific research.
New York: Priority Press.

Table 1: Contradictions between Industry and University Objectives
INDUSTRY UNIVERSITY
New application New invention
Added value Advancement of knowledge
Financial New means for further research
Applied research Basic research
Short-term Long-term
Product-driven To know how? What Why?
Secrecy Free public good
Protection / Patents Publication
Commercial approach Academic freedom